WPC $" s8_ F&NaO1yat zn'jjaVU/psB/8HiӬB="mkyd}eyRQ^#`mD"шi6OK1'< SfgJm71:e|/VbASS΀@4e9=\F}}f;}DZ:+ƈj oD+^Z- 9-!t;{l6lQ:;mqF{Z#r |~%)CHGf=R՟ǔ-A&',(F(*bIQn#2Akw_\[b=w/,7@W9+ w*"'Uf8;j7fZ͆x8xˑxnRL}_lg^ʦ5- cvgjYzvX[S= Dm# % 0D 0G U:N 0 U80 nTh NUNUF ^ Rw^4bvEfa m 0U 0  0 0 0 0 0z 0T 0+ 0C 0B 0 0 0 0 0W 0 0 B 0@ 0 0 0 0t 0?! 0" 0" 0# 00K$ 0<{$ 0$ 0>u% 0v% 0`)& 0`& 0`& 0`I' 0`' 08 ( 0A( 02) 0E) 0:A* 0Y{* 0_* 0 3+ 0j=, 0- B*+/ D/U/ D+/ 0/ D/31 0b1 0602 0f2 0:n3 0^3 0<4 1eB4U64U>4U*5 1uE5 7255nX5NL7bN7zV7V7V7V7V7V7V7V7V7V7V7nX9N(;b*;v2; =?0@#BH KiKIMqOw MWc |jFt#%v~HwxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxUFHP LaserJet 5,,,,0X(#$  0  ( $XXXX<6X9`("Courier NewTT(F:2$  !XXXX        0  <4 9Z+ Courier New <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(CourierTTXXw6X@QX@vr Z6Times New Roman Regular<4 9Z+.Courier New RegularRi1s Nx0s?,}backup3|xTABLE AU*+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5   d( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7F(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7&  d dE)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7I(X7  ?S%2A`Arial?  SR\  `&Times New RomanS7G(X7E)2dxd0KS.SampleKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKQ<6X9`(Courier NewKSR\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB   !"#$% 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Ti) <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@- -  - ' test0test .   <6X9`("Courier NewTTXXx6X@DQX@<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@- - l $XDXXX      1    _ԀInSouthernPacificCo.v.Jensen,244U.S.205(1917),the  SupremeCourtestablishedwhathassincebeencalledthe"Jensen  line,"thelinebetweenthewaterandland.TheCourtheldthat \ maritimeemployeesinjuredontheseawardsideofthelinewerenot 2 coveredbystateworkers'compensationlaws.TheLHWCAwasenacted X in1927tocoverthoseworkers.  $XDXXX      2    _ԀSidwelltakesamuchmoreliteralviewofthe"other  adjoiningarea"language,holdingthat"anareais'adjoining'  navigablewatersonlyifit'adjoins'navigablewaters...,"71 \ F.3dat1138.Wefurtheraddressthedifferenttestsinour 2 discussioninSectionIIinfra. $XDXXX      3    _ԀForconvenience,weshallrefertothewaterwayasThompson  Brook. & $XDXXX      4    _ԀWehavepreviouslyaddressedsitusissues,buthavedoneso  withoutadoptingaparticularanalyticalapproach.SeeProlerized  NewEnglandCo.v.BenefitsReviewBoard,637F.2d30,3839(lst \ Cir.1980);Stockmanv.JohnT.Clark&SonofBoston,Inc.,539 2 F.2d264,272(lstCir.1976).  $XDXXX      5    _ԀTheThirdCircuitarticulatedanevenmorefarreaching  approachinSeaLandService,Inc.v.Director,OfficeofWorkers'  Comp.Programs,540F.2d629,638(3dCir.1976),concludingthat \ Congress"intendedtoexpandthescopeoftheLHWCAtoprovidea 2  federalworkmen'scompensationremedyforallmaritimeemployees."  Thecourtthusheld:  8  Aslongastheemploymentnexus(status)withmaritime 2 activityismaintained,thefederalcompensationremedy X shouldbeavailable.Resuscitatingthesitusrequirement . incasessatisfyingthestatustestwillinterferewith   Congress'intentiontoeliminatethephenomenonof   shiftingcoverage.`    TheSupremeCourthasobservedthattheThirdCircuit"appearsto  \  haveessentiallydiscardedthesitustest,"Caputo,432U.S.at277  2  n.40,andelsewherehasstatedthatbothelementsofthetestmust   begivenforce,seeHerb'sWelding,Inc.v.Gray,470U.S.414,426   (1985).Particularlyinlightofthesecomments,wedonotbelieve d  theThirdCircuittestisdefensible.  $XDXXX      6    _ԀTheDirectorischargedwiththeadministrationand  enforcementoftheLHWCA,seeIngallsShipbuilding,Inc.v.  Director,OWCP,519U.S.248,26263(1997),andalsoisoftena \ litigantinLHWCAcasesasarepresentativeoftheDepartmentof 2 Labor,seeid.at269. $XDXXX      7    _ԀOneofthethreeBoardmembersalsotookthisposition. _ $XDXXX      8    _ԀAtsomepoint,thedistancebetweenaworkplaceandthe  navigablewaterwaymaybecomesolargethatitisindeed  dispositiveoftheissue.Thatisnotthecasehere.  $XDXXX      9    _ԀOnthetwootherHerronfactors,theBoardacceptedthatthe  facility"mayhavebeenbuiltascloseasfeasibletothemain  shipyard,"seeOpinionat11,andfoundreasonabletheALJ's \ conclusionthattheEBMF'slocationwasnotparticularlysuitedto 2 maritimeusesbecausetheprefabricationofpipesystemsneednot X "beperformedonornearthewateroratamaritimesite,"id. g $XDXXX      10    _ԀTheinterpretationof"otheradjoiningarea"setforthin  theDepartmentofLabor'sLHWCAProgramMemorandumNo.58,  GuidelinesforDeterminationofCoverageofClaimsUnderAmended \ Longshoremen'sAct(August5,1977)("Guidelines"),isconsistent 2 withthisanalysis.Thememorandumdescribestherelevant"area" X as"theentire,overallfacilitydevotedtocoveredactivities." . Thememorandumcontinues:   8  [I]tdoesnotdefeatcoverageofashipbuilder'sinjury `  thatthepreciselocationwhereitoccurred!for 6   example,afabricationshop!doesnotitselfadjointhe  \  water;itsufficesiftheoverallareawithinwhichit  2  occurred(generallyashipyard)adjoinsthewater.The   relevant"area,"inshort,istheentiremaritime   facilityinvolved....[S]uchshipyardareasshouldbe d  consideredtoincludenearbylocationswhicharein :  purposeandeffectpartsofthem,evenwhenafenceor `  publicroadsphysically,butnotfunctionally,separate 6 thelocationfromtheshipyard.    Guidelines,at1314(emphasisinoriginal;footnotesomitted). h   Inourview,thememorandumallowsforinterveningnon d maritimeusesoutsidetheperimeterofthemainarea,but : contemplatesonlysuchminorinterruptionsasafenceoradjacent  publicroads.  m $XDXXX      11    _ԀCunninghamarguesthatCongressmusthaveenactedtheLHWCA  underitscommercepowers,ratherthanasanexerciseofitspower  underthemaritimeclauseoftheConstitution,andthatthe \ broaderdefinitionof"navigable"applicabletoCommerceClause 2 casesthusmustbeusedinthiscontext.Thisassertionisfaulty. X InVictoryCarriers,issuedbeforethe1972Amendmentstothe . LHWCA,theSupremeCourtnotedthatCongresshad"amplepowerunder   Arts.IandIIIoftheConstitutiontoenactasuitablesolution"   ifitfeltthat"denyingfederalremediestolongshoremeninjured `  onlandisintolerable,"404U.S.at216.Thecasescitedin 6   supportofthatstatementmakeitclearthattheCourtwas  \  referringtoCongress'sadmiraltypower.Seeid.atn.16;seealso  2  id.at222223(AppendixtoOpinionofDouglas,J.,dissenting)   (notingthattheCourthad"clearlyacknowledgedthatCongress'   constitutionalmaritimepowerdoesnotceaseattheshoreline... d  ."). :    Althoughadmiraltyjurisdictionintorthastraditionallybeen `  limitedtotortsthattookplaceonnavigablewaters,admiralty 6 contractjurisdiction"'extendsoverallcontracts,(wheresoever   theymaybemadeorexecuted...)whichrelatetothenavigation,  businessorcommerceofthesea,'"Johnson,396U.S.at215n.7 h (citationomitted).Becauseworkers'compensationcoverage > embracesbothtortandcontractelements,"Congressneednothave d testedcoveragebylocalityalone."Id.Thus,"Congressmight : haveextendedcoveragetoalllongshoremenbyexercisingitspower  overmaritimecontracts."Id.at215.    Wethinkitevidentthatinthe1972Amendments,Congressdid l exactlywhatthesecasessaidithadthepowertodo,namely,used B itsconstitutionalmaritimeauthoritytoextendLHWCAcoverageto h additionallandbasedmaritimeemployeeswhometboththestatus > andsitustests.Cunningham'scontentionthatthenonexclusive  natureofLHWCAreliefprovesthatthestatutemustbesupportedby  thecommercepowerissimplyincorrect.Stateregulationmay p  supplementfederalmaritimelawsolongasitis"consistentwith F ! federalmaritimeprinciplesandpolicies."YamahaMotorCorp.,USA !l" v.Calhoun,516U.S.199,21415&n.13(1996).  $XDXXX      12    _ԀIndefiningnavigablewatersforpurposesofadmiralty  jurisdiction,theCourtinTheRobertW.Parsonsreliedinparton  thewidelyquoteddefinitiongiveninTheDanielBall,77U.S.(10 \ Wall.)557,563(1870),whichaddressedCongress'scommercepower 2 overnavigablewaters: X 8  Thoseriversmustberegardedaspublicnavigablerivers   inlawwhicharenavigableinfact.Andtheyare   navigableinfactwhentheyareused,oraresusceptible `  ofbeingused,intheirordinarycondition,ashighways 6   forcommerce,overwhichtradeandtravelareormaybe  \  conductedinthecustomarymodesoftradeandtravelon  2  water.    Thisdefinitionappearedinearlycasesinvolvingboththecommerce d  clausepowerandadmiraltyjurisdiction,reflectinganassumption :  thattheirscopewascoextensive.Adamsv.MontanaPowerCo.,528 `  F.2d437,440(9thCir.1975).TheSupremeCourtsubsequently 6 clarifiedthattheseweretwoindependentsourcesofpower,see,   e.g.,InreGarnett,141U.S.1,15(1891),but,asreflectedin  TheRobertW.Parsons,acceptedthe"navigableinfact"testas h applicabletoadmiraltyjurisdiction. $XDXXX      13    _ԀTheALJfoundthatThompsonBrookisnotaffectedbytidal  activitywherethebrookflowsacrossBIW'sproperty,relying  primarilyonmapsandasurveyconductedbyanindependent \ consultingfirm.ThesurveywasthesubjectoftestimonybyBIW's 2 expert,DavidKamila,acivilengineerandlanduseconsultant,who X alsomadepersonalobservationsofthesite.Whenaskedwhatthe . surveynumbersindicatedaboutthetidaleffectontherelevant   sectionofThompsonBrook,Kamilatestifiedthatthe"numberstell   youthatit'sabovethemeantideforsure."Becausethesurvey `  showedthatthelowestelevationofThompsonBrook'schannelinthe 6   relevantareawas1.55feethigherthantheaveragehightideat  \  thebrook'smouth(10.9feetvs.9.35feet),andbecause"the  2  heightofthetidediminishesasittravelsnorth,"theALJ    understoodKamilatostatethattheBIWpropertywasbeyondtidal  influence.TheALJthushadamplefactualsupportforhisfinding.    TheBoard,citingTheRobertW.ParsonsandGeorge,stated \ that"thetidalfluctuationsofThompsonBrookareirrelevant"in 2 determiningnavigability.SeeTheRobertW.Parsons,191U.S.at X 26(itis"nottheebbandflowofthetide,buttheactual . navigabilityofthewaters"thatisthetestofjurisdiction);   George,1997WL573753,at*7("[T]heebbandflowtest[has]been   rejectedasthetestfordeterminingnavigability...."). `  Whetherthe"ebbandflow"testretainsanyvitalityremainsa 6   matterofdiscourse,see,e.g.,MaryGarveyAlgero,EbbandFlowof  \  theTide:AViableDoctrineforDeterminingAdmiraltyJurisdiction  2  oraRelicofthePast?,27SetonHallL.Rev.138(1996),butthe   ALJ'ssupportablefindingofnotidalinfluenceresolvestheissue   here.  $XDXXX      14    _ԀWenotethat,whenaworklocationhassomefunctionallink  withtworeasonablyproximatewaterways,itmaybeappropriateto  lookattheHerronfactorsrelatingtoeachofthemincombination. \ Thisisnotthatcase,andwedonotdecidetheissuehere.  $XDXXX      15    _ԀAlthoughoneBoardmemberwroteaseparateconcurringand  dissentingopinion,hejoinedthemajorityonthispoint. t $XDXXX      16    _ԀAsnotedearlier,itisatleastarguablethattheEBMF  locationisbothsuitedtomaritimeusesandasclosetothemain  shipyardasisfeasiblegivenallthecircumstancesinthecase.  $XDXXX      17    _ԀAlthoughitisnotabasisfordecisioninthiscase,two  membersofthepanelbelievethatthelackofafunctionallink  betweentheEBMFandThompsonBrookmaywellbethemostpertinent \ rationaleforrejectingsitusbasedontheirrelationship.In 2 theirview,section903(a)implicitlyprovidesthatan"adjoining X area"coveredbythestatutemustqualifybasedonitsrelationship . tothenavigablewateruponwhichtheemployer'smaritimeactivity   takesplace.Inotherwords,situsanalysisandtheHerrontest   wouldcomeintoplayonlyinrelationtoabodyofnavigablewater `  onwhichtheemployerconductsitsprimarymaritimebusiness.In 6   thiscase,thatwouldbeonlytheKennebecRiver.  \    Thethirdpanelmemberdisagreesbothwiththeproprietyof  2  theraisingofthetheoryandwiththesubstanceofit.This   memberbelievesthataworkplacethatisliterallycontiguousto   navigablewatersisbydefinitionan"adjoining"areaundersection d  903(a);thus,ifThompsonBrookwerenavigable,theEBMFwouldmeet :  theLHWCA'ssitusrequirement. `    Inthemajority'sview,Congress'spassageofthe1972 6 Amendmentswasadeliberate"marchfromthesealandward,"Triguero   v.ConsolidatedRailCorp.,932F.2d95,100,rulingoutsitus  wherethe"'raisond'etre'"ofafacilityhadnothingtodowith h itsfortuitouslocationnearanothernavigablewaterway,see D Brickhouse,142F.3dat222.Suchaconstructionwouldrender j unnecessaryanyprobingofthenavigabilityofanincidentalbody @ ofwatertodeterminedisabilitycoverage..Courier New Regular  !XDXXX  _TRY,3'X3' Letter 3' Letter3'T ? * ! X,XXXD rX X,     UnitedStatesCourtofAppeals Y r  FortheFirstCircuit  U Y XDX U  A') ` dE< ` A   XDXX XDNo.031980 K  @DAMONR.CUNNINGHAM,JR.,  G  @XX%Petitioner,   @tt)v. O  @DIRECTOR,OFFICEOFWORKERS'COMPENSATIONPROGRAMS, K    UNITEDSTATESDEPARTMENTOFLABOR;BATHIRONWORKS, ! @@*Respondents. } A') ` dE<(` A )y @@ddONPETITIONFORREVIEWOFADECISIONOFTHEBENEFITSREVIEWBOARD ^ S74   P !"#$%(03T   `     h   A') ` dE< ` A  ] @'Before B   @@ _Torruella_,CircuitJudge,  Coffin,SeniorCircuitJudge, t andLynch,CircuitJudge. J =A') ` dE<` A !     MarciaJ.Clevelandforpetitioner.  #   BarryH._Joyner_,AttorneyfortheDirector,withwhomHoward !$ M._Radzely_,SolicitorofLabor,DonaldS.Shire,Associate ]"% Solicitor,andMarkA._Reinhalter_,Counselfor_Longshore_,wereon 3#& brieffortheDirector,OfficeofWorkers'CompensationPrograms.  $Y'   Stephen_Hessert_withwhomDorisV.R.ChampagneandNorman, $/ ( Hanson&_Detroy_,LLC,wereonbriefforBathIronWorks. %!) *'ddd Xdd Xdd X(#(#,( dd ,( dd ,( dd +  7(#,7(#  SI(#-  @38201 @SAugust3,2004 q)$/  RHCG*%0"  @38201  @ R((#1  (  * !   -)4? _  Yo[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo8DXXdd8  gYo[X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:<H?AXo ` COFFIN,SeniorCircuitJudge. PetitionerDamonE.  Cunningham,Jr.hasbeenapipefitterforBathIronWorksinBath, x Maine,formorethan25years,andsince1998hasworkedatthe $t company'sEastBrunswickManufacturingFacility("EBMF").Atthe   EBMF,whichisapproximately3.5to4milesfromBIW'smain |  shipyardinBath,workersprefabricatepipeunitsthatare ( x  transportedbytruckandinstalledinshipsatBath.Cunningham $  injuredhisbackatEBMFinOctober1999andsubsequentlysought   disabilitycoverageundertheLongshoreandHarborWorkers' ,|  CompensationAct("LHWCA"),33U.S.C.901950.AnAdministrative ( LawJudge("ALJ")andtheBenefitsReviewBoard("BRB"or"Board")  deniedhisclaimonthegroundthattheEBMFisnotacoveredwork 0 location. ,   Inhispetitionforreview,CunninghamassertsthattheALJ  andBoarderredbytoonarrowlydefiningthereachofthestatute. 4 HecontendsthattheEBMFqualifiesasanareathatadjoins 0 navigablewaters.See33U.S.C.903(a).AlthoughCunningham   presentsasympatheticcasebasedonthenatureofhisemployment, 8!" weconcludethattheALJproperlydeterminedthattheLHWCAdoes "4$ notpresentlyconferbenefitsonemployeeswhoareinjuredatthe $& EBMF.Wethereforemustdenythepetitionforreview. <&!( @$I.Background '8#*   TheLHWCAwasenactedin1927toprovidecompensationfor )$, maritimeworkerswhowereinjuredwhileworkingonnavigablewaters @+&. inthecourseoftheiremployment.Director,OfficeofWorkers'  Comp.Programsv.PeriniNorthRiverAssocs.,459U.S.297,311 \ (1983);NortheastMarineTerminalCo.v.Caputo,432U.S.249,257 X 58(1977).Initially,amaritimeworkerwascoveredunderthe   statuteonlyifhisinjuryoccurredwhilehewasperformingworkon `  theseawardsideoftheshore.Caputo,432U.S.at258.h #  1      ׀In1972,  \  thelawwassignificantlyamended,seeid.at261;PeriniNorth   RiverAssocs.,459U.S.at313,andoneofthechangesmadeisat d  theheartofthiscase.Ratherthanstoppingatthewater'sedge, `  coverageundertheactwasextendedshorewardinrecognitionthat   "moderntechnologyhadmovedmuchofthelongshoreman'sworkonto h theland,"Caputo,432U.S.at262&n.20;seeS.Rep.No.921125, d at1213(1972);H.R.Rep.No.921441,at1011(1972),reprinted  in1972U.S.C.C.A.N.4698,470708.Thepertinentsectionofthe l amendedstatuteprovidesasfollows: h 0  8` (#(#[C]ompensationshallbepayableunderthischapter  inrespectofdisabilityordeathofanemployee,  butonlyifthedisabilityordeathresultsfroman p  injuryoccurringuponthenavigablewatersofthe F ! UnitedStates(includinganyadjoiningpier,wharf, !l" drydock,terminal,buildingway,marinerailway, !B# orotheradjoiningareacustomarilyusedbyan "$ employerinloading,unloading,repairing, #% dismantling,orbuildingavessel).t$&` `   J% ' 33U.S.C.903(a).    Amongtheotherchangeseffectedbythe1972Amendmentswas \ theadditionofarequirementthattheinjuredemployeebeengaged X inmaritimeemployment.SeeCaputo,432U.S.at26364&n.21;33   U.S.C.902(3).Previously,aworkergenerallywasentitledto `  compensationsolongashisinjuryoccurredonnavigablewaters,  \  withoutregardtowhetherhisparticularjobwasmaritimein   nature.Caputo,432U.S.at26364.Eligibilityforcoverage d  undertheLHWCAisthusnowsubjecttobotha"status"testanda `  "situs"test.Cunningham'sstatusasamaritimeworkeris   uncontested,andwethereforemustaddressonlywhetherthe"situs" h ofhisemployment!theEBMF!fallswithinthestatutory d definition.BecauseCunningham'sinjuryoccurredneitherona  navigablewaterwaynoronanyofthespecificsiteslistedin l section903(a),theissueiswhethertheEBMFconstitutesan"other h adjoiningarea"underthestatute.    Asnotedearlier,theEBMFisseveralmilesfromBIW'smain p  shipyard,whichislocatedontheKennebecRiverinBath.Thepipe !l" andtinshopshousedattheEBMForiginallywerelocatedatthe "$ mainshipyardandweremovedin1990becausemorespacewasneeded t$& forthemtooperateefficiently.TheworkdoneattheEBMFis  &p!( fullyintegratedintoBIW'sshipbuildingprocess;since1995,the '#*  companyhasutilizeda"justintime"systeminwhichcomponents x)$, areprefabricatedinEastBrunswickanddeliveredtoBathjust  beforetheyareneededforinstallationintheships. \    TheEBMFisoneoffiveBIWfacilitiesconcentratedinthe X sameareaofEastBrunswick.ThecomplexofBIWbuildings   dominatestheeasternportionofBrunswick,accountingformore `  acresandmoreemployeesthanotherlandusers.Othermaritime  \  businessesarelocatedinEastBrunswick,includingamarinaand   propellershop,buttheareabetweentheBathshipyardandBIW's d  EastBrunswickcomplexisnotpredominantlymaritimeincharacter. `  Basedonareviewofmaps,photographsandtestimony,theBoard   reportedthattheareacontainsrestaurants,motels,convenience h stores,gasstations,residencesandothernonmaritimeuses. d   AlthoughremovedbyseveralmilesfromtheKennebecRiver,the  EBMFdoeshaveproximitytosaltwater,atleastsomeofwhich l indisputablyisnavigable.Atitsclosestpoint,theEBMFproperty h isabout1,400feetfromthenavigableNewMeadowsRiver,aninlet  ofCascoBay.Thepropertyalsoiscrossedbyabodyofwater p  identifiedasThompsonBrookbyBIWanddescribedasatidal !l" saltwatermarshbypetitioner.Thepartiesdebatewhetherthat "$ waterwayisnavigablewithinthemeaningoftheLHWCA. t$&   Afterexaminingavarietyoffactors!includingthe  &p!( geography,tidalactivityandhistoryofthearea,aswellasthe '#* relationshipbetweenBIW'smainshipyardandtheEastBrunswick x)$, site!theALJconcludedthattheEBMFisneitherliterally $+t&. contiguoustonavigablewatersnorotherwisean"adjoiningarea"  withinthemeaningofsection903(a).TheALJrejected \ petitioner'scontentionthatThompsonBrookisnavigable,finding, X amongotherfactors,thatthewaterwaydoesnotmeetthe   requirementthatiteitherbecurrentlyusedforcommercial `  purposesorreasonablycapableoffuturecommercialuse.In  \  evaluatingwhethertheEBMFisan"adjoiningarea"inrelationto   theNewMeadowsRiver,theALJutilizedatestsetoutbytheNinth d  CircuitinBradyHamiltonStevedoreCo.v.Herron,568F.2d137, `  141(9thCir.1978),thatfocusesonthe"functionalrelationship"   betweentheworkplaceandnavigablewaters.SeealsoTexports h StevedoreCo.v.Winchester,632F.2d504,51314(5thCir.1980) d (enbanc);butseeSidwellv.ExpressContainerServs.,Inc.,71  F.3d1134,113839(4thCir.1995).i #  2      ׀TheALJfoundthatno l functionalconnectionexistedbetweenthemaritimeworkdoneatthe h facilityandtheNewMeadowsRiver,andthusthattheEBMFwasnot  coveredasanextensionofthatwaterway.TheALJdidnotaddress p  thequestionwhethertheEBMFwasanareaadjoiningtheBIW !l" shipyardontheKennebec. "$   TheBoardlargelyagreedwiththeALJ'sfindings,whichit t$& deemedsupportedbysubstantialevidenceandconsistentwiththe  &p!( relevantcaselaw.AlthoughtheALJdidnotexplicitlyconsider  thenexusbetweentheEBMFandtheKennebecRiver,theBoard's \ examinationoftheundisputedfactsandthejudge'ssubsidiary X findingsledittoconcludeasamatteroflawthattheEBMF"is   notwithintheperimeterofageneralmaritimeareaaroundthe `  KennebecRiverorthemainshipyard."  \    PetitionerCunninghamassertsthattheALJandBoarddecisions   wereinfectedbynumerousfactualandlegalerrors,including d  misinterpretationoftheHerron"functionalrelationship"test, `  neglectofastatutorypresumptioninfavorofcoverage,andlack   ofrecordsupportforthefindingthatthesaltmarsh!thebodyof h watercalledThompsonBrookbytheALJandtheBoardj #  3      ׀!wasnot, d andcouldnotbemade,navigable.    WereviewtheBoard'srulingsoflawdenovoandotherwise l examineitsdecisiontodetermineifitadheredtothe"substantial h evidence"standardinreviewingtheALJ'sfactualfindings.Bath  IronWorksv.Director,OfficeofWorkers'Comp.Programs,244F.3d p  222,226(lstCir.2001);ProlerizedNewEnglandCo.v.Benefits !l" ReviewBd.,637F.2d30,3536(lstCir.1980). "$ @#II.Discussion t$&   Wedisposepreliminarilyofpetitioner'scontentionthatwe  &p!( mustviewthiscasewithabiasinfavorofcoverage,pursuantto '#* 33U.S.C.920(a).Section920(a)statesapresumptionthat"the  claimcomeswithintheprovisionsofthischapter"ifthereisno \ "substantialevidencetothecontrary."InStockmanv.JohnT. X Clark&SonofBoston,Inc.,539F.2d264,269(lstCir.1976),we   heldthatthisprovisiondoesnotgoverngeneralinterpretationof `  thesitusrequirement.LikeStockman,thiscaserequiresusto  \  address"'generalpropositionsormethodsofapproach,'"id.at270   (citationomitted),fordeterminingwhenaworkplacemaybe d  classifiedasan"adjoining"area.Howthesestandards,inturn, `  applytothelargelyundisputedfactsalsorequireslegaljudgments   aboutthestatute'sscopethatweconcludearenotsubjecttothe h presumption.Cf.PittstonStevedoringCorp.v.Dellaventura,544 d F.2d35,48(2dCir.1976),aff'dsubnom.NortheastMarine  TerminalCo.v.Caputo,432U.S.249(1977)("[T]heveryfactthat l thepresumptioncanbeovercomebysubstantialcontraryevidence h indicatesitsinapplicabilitytoaninterpretivequestionof  generalimport...."). p    Wethusturntothesubstantivequestionbeforeus:whether !l" theEBMFisan"adjoiningarea"undersection903(a),entitling "$ employeesworkingtheretotheLHWCA'sdisabilitycoverage.Weare t$& mindfulthatCongressintendedthroughthisprovisiontoextendthe  &p!( statute'sreachtoemployeesperformingmaritimeworkawayfromthe '#* water'sedgeandthatthebroadlanguageofthe1972Amendments x)$, "suggeststhatweshouldtakeanexpansiveviewoftheextended $+t&. coverage,"Caputo,432U.S.at268;seealsoPeriniNorthRiver  Assocs.,459U.S.at31516. \   Thiscourthasnotyetarticulatedastandardmethodologyfor X approachingthequestionof"adjoiningarea."k #  4      ׀Asnotedearlier,   however,othercircuitshaveadoptedvariedapproachesin `  evaluatingwhetheragivenworkplacequalifiesasan"adjoining  \  area"underthestatute.BoththeNinthCircuitinHerron,568   F.2dat137,andtheFifthCircuitinWinchester,632F.2dat504, d  viewthatphrasetodescribe"afunctionalrelationshipthatdoes `  notinallcasesdependuponphysicalcontiguity,"Herron,568F.2d   at141.Acourtassessingtherelationshipmustinsteadbalance h allrelevantcircumstances.TheNinthCircuitlistedseveral d factorsthat,amongothers,itbelievedshouldbeconsideredin  determiningwhetherasiteis"adjoining": l 8  theparticularsuitabilityofthesiteforthemaritime h usesreferredtointhestatute;whetheradjoining > propertiesaredevotedprimarilytousesinmaritime  commerce;theproximityofthesitetothewaterway;and  whetherthesiteisasclosetothewaterwayasis p  feasiblegivenallofthecircumstancesinthecase.F !   Herron,568F.2dat141.l #  5       !B#   TheFourthCircuit,meanwhile,adherestoaliteralreadingof  thestatute.InSidwell,thecourtconcludedthatevengeneral \ geographicalproximitytonavigablewaterswasinsufficientto X qualifyanareaas"adjoining,"holdingthattheareamustbe   either"'contiguouswith'"orotherwise"'touch[]'suchwaters." `  See71F.3dat113839.Iftheareainquestionisseparatedfrom  \  thenavigablewatersbyotherareas,theFourthCircuitstated,it   "simplyisnot'adjoining'thewatersunderanyreasonable d  definitionofthatterm."Id.at1139;seealsoJonathanCorp.v. `  Brickhouse,142F.3d217,22022(4thCir.1998).     BoththeALJandBoardtookthebroaderviewespousedbythe h NinthandFifthcircuits,butnonethelessconcludedthattheEBMF d wasnotanadjoiningarea.Cunninghamunsurprisinglyendorsesthe  "functionalrelationship"testbutassertsthat,inapplyingit, l theALJfailedtoweighalltherelevantfactors,insteadtreating h thethreetofourmiledistancebetweentheEBMFandtheBath  shipyardasdispositive.TheALJfurthererred,Cunningham \ contends,bylimitinghimselftoexaminingtheEBMF'sconnectionto X asinglebodyofwater;inCunningham'sview,astrongfunctional   relationshipwithonenavigablewaterwaymaybecombinedinthe `  calculusoffactorswiththefacility'sproximitytoanother  \  navigablewaterway.     Thus,CunninghamassertsthattheEBMFqualifiesintwoways d  forLHWCAcoverage.First,hecontendsthatthestrengthofthe `  functionalrelationshipbetweenBIW'smainshipyardinBathandthe   EBMFoutweighsanyproximityissuewithrespecttothenavigable h KennebecRiver.Alternatively,iftheKennebecisdeemedtobetoo d farfortheEBMFto"adjoin"it,thefacility'sstrongfunctional  relationshipwiththeBathshipyard,combinedwithitsproximityto l theNewMeadowsRiverorThompsonBrook,alsobalancesoutinfavor h ofcoverage.ThelatterapproachimplicatesCunningham'sclaim  thattheALJerredinfindingthatThompsonBrookisnotnavigable; p  heattributesthatmistaketothejudge'suseofthemorelimited !l" admiraltydefinitionof"navigable,"ratherthanthebroader "$ definitionapplicabletoCommerceClauseclaims. t$&   BecausetheALJandBoardbothusedthefunctional  &p!( relationshiptest,whichprovidesgreaterflexibilityfora '#* claimantsuchasCunningham,andweneverthelessagreewiththe x)$, determinationthatLHWCAcoverageisforeclosedinthiscase,we $+t&. assume,withoutdeciding,thattheHerronfunctionalapproachis  correct. \   Applyingthisfunctionaltest,wefirstconfrontwhetherthe X EBMFisan"adjoiningarea"inrelationtotheBathshipyardand   theKennebec.Ourreview,ofcourse,islimitedtoanylingering `  legalissuesandconsideringwhethertheBoardproperlyevaluated  \  theALJ'srulingsunderthesubstantialevidencetest.The   DirectoroftheOfficeofWorkers'CompensationProgramsargues d  thattheBoard'sdecisionshouldbevacatedandthecaseremanded `  totheALJbecausetheBoardimproperlyconcluded,asamatterof   law,thatthedistancebetweentheEBMFandtheKennebecRiver h foreclosedafindingthattheEBMFwasanadjoiningarea.m #  6      ׀TheALJ d neverconsideredtheEBMF'srelationshiptotheKennebec  riverfront,andtheDirectorassertsthattheALJ!thedesignated l factfinder!mustbegiventheopportunitytoconsiderinthefirst h instanceallrelevantcircumstances.n #  7          WeagreewiththeBoardmajoritythat,inlightofthe p  undisputedfactsandthefactualdeterminationsthattheALJdid !l" make,aremandisunnecessary.Moreover,contrarytoCunningham's "$ assertion,theBoarddidnotbaseitsdecisionsimplyonthe t$& mileagebetweentheKennebecRiverandtheEBMF,arationalethat  weagreewouldbeinsufficientunderthetestweareapplying.o #  8      ׀ \ TheBoardcarefullyreviewedthemultiplefactorsoftheHerron X testandconcludedthatthenatureoftheareabetweentheEBMFand   theKennebecwaterfront,inadditiontothelackofproximity, `  compelledtheconclusionthattheEBMFwasoutsidetheperimeterof  \  an"adjoiningarea"withinthemeaningofsection903(a).p #  9           Wefindneitherlegalnorfactualerrorinthatconclusion. d  Althoughthefunctional,"justintime"relationshipbetweenthe `  twolocationscouldhardlybestronger,thekeyfactisthatthey   arequiteclearlytwoseparatelocations.Evenif,astheBoard h assumed,EastBrunswickwastheclosestavailablelocationfor d relocatingthepipefittingwork,itcannotreasonablybeviewedas  an"adjoining"extensionoftheshipyard.Ratherthansharingan l "area"orneighborhoodwiththemainfacility,theEBMFispartof h asecondcampusfortheshipyard'smaritimeactivities.Thisis  notamatterofmileage.Wecouldimagineasprawlingcomplexthat p  spansoneormorepublicroadwaysandincorporatessomenon !l" maritimeuses,butstillwouldqualifyasasinglecontinuous  extensionoftheshore.Here,however,theshipyardandtheEast \ Brunswickcomplexaretwoseparatemaritimeenclavesseparatedby X alargeareaofmostlyunrelatedbusinessandresidential   properties.SeeBrownv.BIWCorp.,22BRBS384(1989),1989WL `  245312,*3(reversingtheALJafterconcludingthatBIW'sHardings  \  facility,locatedinthesameclusterofbuildingsastheEBMF,was   notan"otheradjoiningarea"undersection903(a),notingthat d  "[t]headministrativelawjudgeplacedtoomuchemphasisuponthe `  functionalrelationshipbetweentheHardingsfacilityand   employer'sshipyard"). h   Petitionerhaspointedtonocasewithsuchanextendedview d oftheconceptof"adjoining."Weagreethatthereisnological  basisfordistinguishingbetweenthemaritimeemployeesatthemain l shipyardandthesimilarlyoccupiedemployeesattheEBMF.Both h areengagedinprimarymaritimeactivitydirectlyrelevanttothe  shipyard,andbothsetsofemployeesthushavethesamefunctional p  relationshiptothenavigablewatersoftheKennebec.Butdespite !l" thisequivalence,anddespitetheSupremeCourt'sadmonitionto "$ broadlyconstruethe1972Amendments,wearenotatlibertyto t$& ignoreentirelytheconceptof"adjoining."TheSupremeCourthas  &p!( confirmedthatthe"status"and"situs"requirementsareseparate, '#* seePeriniNorthRiverAssocs.,459U.S.at324n.32("[T]hestatus x)$, requirementisoccupationalandthesitustestisgeographic."), $+t&. andwemaynot"blurtogetherrequirementsCongressintendedtobe  distinct,"Herb'sWelding,Inc.v.Gray,470U.S.414,426(1985). \ WethusfindnolegalerrorintheBoard'sconclusionthatno X matterhowmuchmaritimeactivitytakesplaceattheEBMF,andhow   manyadditionalBIWbuildingssurroundit,thesubstantialexpanse `  ofunrelatedlandusesbetweenthemainshipyardandEastBrunswick  \  foreclosesafindingthattheone"adjoins"theother.q #  10           Insoconcluding,weemphasizethatwearenotemployingthe d  FourthCircuit'sstrict"adjoining"standardorholdingthatall `  interveningpropertymustbemaritimeinnature.Underthe   functionalapproach,publicroadwaysorothernonmaritimeuses  thatseparatethesubjectworkplacefromthewaterfrontwillnot \ disqualifythefacilityfromLHWCAcoverage.See,e.g., X Winchester,632F.2dat513("Werejectthepositionthatthe   presenceorabsenceofnonmaritimebuildingsbetweenthepointof `  injuryandthewaterisanabsolutetestforwhetheraninjuryis  \  coveredundertheLHWA.").Thesuitabilityofthesitefor   maritimeuseandtheunavailabilityofsitesclosertothe d  waterfrontaresignificantconsiderations,andbothfactors `  arguablysupportpetitionerhere.Nonetheless,evenunderthe   flexibleHerrontest,foranareato"adjoin"navigablewaters, h theremustbeatleastsomesenseofalargelycontinuous d neighborhoodofmaritimeuses,someshapeofaperimeter!perhaps  brokeninspotsorirregularinform!thatextendsoutfromthe l water'sedge.SeeWinchester,632F.2dat514,quotedinSisson h v.Davis&Sons,Inc.,131F.3d555,557(5thCir.1998)(a  workplacecanbesaidtoadjoinnavigablewaters"solongasthe p  siteisclosetoorinthevicinityofnavigablewaters,orina !l" neighboringarea"). "$   TheDirectorarguesthattheconceptshouldembraceafacility t$& thatis"functionallypartoftheshipyard,providedasufficient  &p!( geographicnexusexistsbetweenthefacilityandnavigablewaters." '#* Whetherornotastatutoryamendmenttothiseffectwouldimprove x)$, matters,ourviewisthatitistoomuchofastretchfor $+t&. "adjoining"tomake.Beyondquestion,substantialevidence  supportstheALJ'simplicitfinding!andtheBoard'sexplicitone \ !thatthenecessarygeographicalconnectiondoesnotexistbetween X theEBMFandtheKennebec.     AstheBoardnoted,Cunninghamarguesthatthegeographic `  shortcomingsbetweentheEBMFandtheKennebecRivercanbe  \  overcomeinthefunctionalanalysisbecausetheEBMFisnearboth   theNewMeadowsRiverandThompsonBrook,thelatterofwhich d  actuallycrossestheEBMFproperty.Cunninghamassertsthatboth `  ofthesewaterwaysarenavigableandthattheirproximitytohis   workplace,togetherwiththeEBMF'sfunctionalconnectionwiththe h Kennebec,qualifieshimforcoverageundertheLHWCA.Allthree d membersofthepanelagreethatthisargumentisflawedfor  reasonsfullyexplainedbytheALJandBoard,althoughtwomembers l believeanalternativeroutetothesameoutcomeissupportedby h thestatutoryhistoryandprecedent.Seeinfran.17.    Whatisundisputedamongthepanelmembersisthatsubstantial p  evidencesupportstheALJ'sandBoard'sdeterminationthatThompson !l" Brookisnotnavigableand,thus,thatitsadjacencytotheEBMF "$ propertycanplaynoroleintheHerronfunctionalanalysis.The t$& ALJandBoardcorrectlydeterminedthattheapplicabledefinition  &p!( of"navigable"derivesfromadmiraltylaw,seegenerallyVictory '#* Carriers,Inc.v.Law,404U.S.202,216(1971);id.at22223 x)$, (AppendixtoOpinionofDouglas,J.,dissenting);NaciremaCo.v. $+t&. Johnson,396U.S.212,215&n.7(1969).r #  11      ׀Foradmiraltypurposes,  theconceptof"navigability"isgenerallyunderstoodtodescribe \ "apresentcapabilityofwaterstosustaincommercialshipping,"or X "contemporarynavigabilityinfact,"Livingstonv.UnitedStates,   627F.2d165,16970(8thCir.1980).SeealsoKaiserAetnav. `  UnitedStates,444U.S.164,17172(notingthevaryingdefinitions  of"navigablewaters"fordifferentcontexts);TheRobertW. \ Parsons,191U.S.17,26(1903)("themoderndoctrine"isthat"the X actualnavigabilityofthewaters[]isthetestofjurisdiction")s #  12      ;   Chapmanv.UnitedStates,575F.2d147,151(7thCir.1978)(en `  banc);Georgev.LucasMarineConstr.,28BRBS230(1994),1994WL  \  573753,**4,6("[A]naturaloranartificialwaterwaywhichisnot   capableofbeingusedasaninterstatearteryofcommercebecause d  ofnaturalormanmadeconditionsisnotconsiderednavigablefor `  purposesofjurisdictionunderthe[LWHCA]."),aff'dsubnom.    Georgev.Director,OWCP,86F.3d1162(9thCir.1996)(Table). h   TheALJthoroughlyreviewedthevoluminousevidencesubmitted   ontheissueofThompsonBrook'snavigability,andtheBoardin \ turnendorsedtheALJ'sfindingofnonnavigabilitybasedonample X evidencethatthewaterwayisneitherpresentlyusedforcommercial   purposesnoradaptableforfuturecommercialuse.Weseenoneed `  torepeathereCunningham'sfactualcontentions,asourreviewis  \  limitedtoascertainingwhethertheBoardproperlyappliedthe   substantialevidencetesttotheALJ'sfindings.AstheBoard d  noted,theevidenceconcerningThompsonBrook'sphysicalfeatures `  ("anarrow,shallowchannelofwaterwithmanysharpmeandering   turns"),itslackofcurrentcommercialusage,anditslocationin h a"ResourceProtectionZone"allpointtothereasonablenessofthe d ALJ'sconclusion.TheBoard,additionally,creditedtheALJ's  findingthatThompsonBrookmaynotbeconsideredanextensionof l thenavigableNewMeadowsRiver,anditrejectedappellant's h contentionthatThompsonBrookshouldbedeemednavigablebasedon  tidalactivity.Wefindnoflawinthesejudgments.t #  13      ׀Thus,the p  EBMFmaynotqualifyasanadjoiningareabasedonitsproximityto  ThompsonBrook. \   TheargumentthatthefunctionalrelationshipbetweentheEBMF X andtheKennebeccanbesupplementedbythegeographicproximityof   theNewMeadowsRiver,whichisindisputablynavigable,also `  founders.ThefullpanelagreesthattheHerronanalysisdoesnot  \  anticipateaggregatingafacility'ssolelyfunctionalrelationship   withonewaterwayanditssolelygeographicproximitytoanother d  noncontiguouswaterway.Here,theBoardendorsedtheALJ's `  determinationthatnofunctionalrelationshipexistsbetweenthe   EBMFandtheNewMeadowsRiver,andwefindnoerrorinthat h conclusion.TheBoardreliedheavilyontheALJ'sfindingthat,in d theBoard'swords,"EBMF'sproximitytotheNewMeadowsRiveris  irrelevant"because"theevidenceestablishesthatemployerdoes l  notowntheinterveningpropertyorusetheRiverforanyreason." h   Aworkplacethatfailsthesitustestbecauseitistoo   distantfromthenavigablewaterwithwhichithasafunctional \ linkismissingacriticalelementofthecalculus;tofillthat X proximitygapwithasecond,incidentalbodyofwaterwouldextend   LHWCAcoveragetoamuchwiderrangeoflocations.Atleastwhere `  thesecondwaterwayhasnofunctionalconnectionwiththe  \  employer'smaritimeactivities,wefindneitherprecedentnorlogic   tosupportsuchanextensionoftheconceptof"adjoiningarea."u #  14      ׀ d  TheBoardreachedthesameconclusion,notingthat,underHerron `  andWinchester,"thesiteinquestionmusthavebothageographic   andfunctionalnexuswiththesamebodyofwater."v #  15       h Ѐ  WhethertheEBMF'srelationshipwiththeNewMeadowsRiver d may,onitsown,establishsitusundertheHerronanalysisisa  separatequestionandonetowhichwenowturn.Atitsclosest l point,theNewMeadowsis1,400feetfromtheEBMFproperty,a h distancefromnavigablewatersthatreasonablycouldsupporta  findingofsitusifotherfactorsweresimilarlyfavorable.Even p   iftheALJ'sfindingsagainstpetitioneronotherofthe__Herron_ !l" factorsaredebatable,w #  16      ׀however,thelackofafunctionallink   betweenthe_EBMF_ԀandtheNewMeadowsRiverovershadowstheir \ impact.AstheBoardnoted,"[the]employer,indisputably,does X notusetheNewMeadowsRiver,andthus,thatwaterwaycannot   defineanareawithafunctionaluserelatedtoit." `    Becausepetitionerhasfailedtoestablishthatthe_EBMF_  \  satisfiesthesitusrequirementinrelationtoanyofthethree   waterwaysatissue,heisnotentitledtobenefitsunderthe_LHWCA_. d    Thepetitionforreviewisthereforedenied.x #  17      # XDXXXDI#